HITMAN wrote:Ron,its true Unger will make you a better player but no more than any other course. practice makes you better not thowing a disc two feet from the pin and being OB.

Completely off topic, but oh well...

Back in the day the top players complained about short wooded courses. They said they were "lucky" holes since no one should be able to consistently thread the needle on a wooded route and a lucky hacker could beat a more skilled player for no good reason. The buzz words in course design became "risk and reward." The risk and reward concept was that there was a bitchy-tough route to the hole to give you a birdie attempt and a safe route you could take for par. The good players could kick your behind if they hit the gaps on the birdie route while the hackers made their way around on the safe route. However, if the good players had a bad day and spent all day trying to save par out of the shule, a hacker having a good day could take them out. So there was risk in going the birdie route. You actually had to hit the lines.

Today I'm seeing more and more holes that have the tough birdie route with no safe route. So basically I'm forced to take the same shot the good players take. If the good player has a bad day, they just beat me by fewer strokes becasue I'm forced to throw out of the shule along with them. Too me it is that same thing as the "lucky" short holes, but becasue it favors the highly skilled players they don't complain. Disc golf is a 100% player-driven sport, and your reputation is based on what you do on the course. The highly regarded people are the best players. Since they don't mind the "all risk" holes, good luck complaining about it.

To me it's no big deal to have a safe route. If you want to compete you can't take the safe route, so those players who want to be challenged and be a top pro will not go that way. However, talentless hackers that make up the majority of the disc golf population (if I had a mirror here I'd be looking at one) can still enjoy a course if the holes have a safe route. By embracing this movement to Uber-hard courses with no safe routes, you built a specialty course that is going to appeal to a very small segment of the disc golf population. That might sound cool if you are part of that small segment, since you will get an mostly-empty course to play on. However in the big picture of promoting the sport to a larger % of the general population, somebody ought to keep the poor hacker in mind.

In other words...you can try to force me to take risky shots, but I'm still going to be a fat, 40+ weenie-armed hacker. No matter how many times I play Unger, I'm not going pro. Since it is a public course utilizing public land, there ought to be a way for me to play Unger without throwing $45.00 worth of plastic in the lake. If it was a private course on private land, I would have no problem with it and I would just decide if I wanted to go there or not. However, this is public land. You have a responsibility to keep the general public in mind when you use public land. I'm pretty sure that if anybody at the County actually understood disc golf, they would have a problem with the current design on these grounds.

"However in the big picture of promoting the sport to a larger % of the general population, somebody ought to keep the poor hacker in mind. You have a responsibility to keep the general public in mind when you use public land. I'm pretty sure that if anybody at the County actually understood disc golf, they would have a problem with the current design on these grounds."

You are spot on with these two statements. I agree, and have seriously wondered why someone designed this ugly course! If there were only one water hole, say hole 11, which is an excellent hole, and the only one that was that close to water, I would not mind this course, but there are way too many of the same type of shots, and not enough of a variety of shots to make this the "championship" course a few misguided souls said this was! This course has very little potential, and unless it gets the amenities the public needs, and a much more user-friendly re-design, I would say it sucks more ass than a tornado at a DONKEY FARM.

Life is short, make the most of every opportunity you get to do the right thing, even when it would be easier to just say "Screw it, I don't care." Make a difference, one opportunity at a time. Smile!

As I said before I have never played Unger and have no idea what it is like. If it can be reconfigured that would be a start. I'm guessing the baskets won't hold up too well after continued flooding. There has been some record rainfall the past few years, so maybe this is a once in a 10 year kind of thing. I'm sure the maintenance crew out there knows the answer and I'm sure Brad knows as well. If this is a yearly thing and the park is completely closed for a few months out of the year then I think there has to be better options. Even if you moved all of the holes away from the flood zones they are still useless if you can't get in the park.

I agree with stiff and chains as well on who the courses are designed for. There used to be a disc golfer who worked for the parks dept and was the main person for getting QR approved. He is what you would consider a hacker. The parks dept was approached many times about making QR a "championship" course. He always shot down the idea and I have always agreed with that decision. Now if you want to talk about a second set of concrete tee pads I completely agree. You can have the shorter course that 95% of the general public would prefer and you could also have your long challenging course that the other 5% would prefer.

The idea to make a second set of shorter tee pads at CC was voted down last year. It was discussed again and I know the Hart boys have done some work with shorter pads although I don't know to what extent. For the life of me though I can't figure out why anyone would have something against a second set of shorter pads. And at CC of all places.

One final thing though, the 5% of players that want the championship courses do 95% of the work on the area courses. That doesn't necessarily mean they should have absolute power on all decisions, but take it for what it's worth.

I've read it sober, and I've read it drunk, and I still don't understand it, but Eric, can you please explain how something sucks ass like a torando at a donkey farm? Maybe it sucks ass b/c it was my fault at league this week? Or it sucks ass like a triple circle 17 at Unger?

I remember talking to Denny O'Brien after Bluebird went in. He was the Director at Ellisville at the time, and he went along with the course proposal because he was told by the designer that it was going to be a course that would appeal to all skill levels. When I told him it was one of the harder courses I had played, he was surprised and ticked off. He understood that it was irresponsible to use public land for something that would not appeal to a large portion of the population, and he was upset that he got stuck with a course that wasn't friendly to new players. Chad had it right, you have to have a balance in your course design. You can't use public land to make a playground for the top 5% of players. The proof is when you compare the crowd at QR and the crowd at Bluebird. Which course is promoting the sport?

magic wrote:The idea to make a second set of shorter tee pads at CC was voted down last year.

See, this makes no sense to me. It was actually keeping me awake. Creve Coeur is easily the most visible course we have. Why you would want it to be so long that it is unfriendly to noobs is beyond me. For it to actually work as a course that will help attract new players, it has to set up friendly for new players.

For as long as I can remember there has been this local theory that if you could wipe out Hazelwood, that all of those players would go to Endicott or CC and become better players. It's preposterous. You can't force people to do what they don't want to do, especially with their free time. The Birch Boys are free to go to Endicott anytime they choose. They choose to stay at White Birch. The kind of players who want a challenge will leave White Birch. The kind of players who don't will stay. You can't force someone who just wants to play White Birch to become the kind of player that will seek out a challenge. If White Birch disappeared, so would those players.

The truth is that we want White Birch there to attract new players. We want White Birch there to keep hackers playing and part of the sport. What good does it do an organization like RCF that is dedicated to promoting the sport of disc golf to have all of those players quit?

So if the theory behind not establishing red tees at CC is to force players to throw long and get better, well...grow up! The players who want to get better will play the longs. By not having reds, all you do is drive off potential players who would benefit from throwing from the reds. It has never made any sense to me.

I'd like to see Board minutes posted so you could see what was discussed, and know who voted for and against things. I'd like to know who is against red tees at CC and why. Heck. I might take time off work, drive to St. Louis and pay $20.00 just to be able to vote against the people who voted against red tees at CC if I knew who they were.

Really, think about it. A course like Unger can get approved, but red tees at CC can't? That right there tells you who we are looking out for.

The club advertises that there are 10,000 disc golfers in the St. Louis area. I would agree with that number and think it might be even higher. That means that 3.5% of the players in the area have joined the club. These are the guys that can handle the long courses. They are the one’s that come on this website. They are the ones that sit in board meetings making decisions. You basically have a huge silent majority. The only way they voice their opinion is by what courses they play. I think having 2 of the most heavily played courses in the area also being the shortest should speak for itself. Some of the longest and most challenging courses are the least played.

If you went to QR and removed the current tee pads and made concrete tee pads at the blue tees you would see the amount of disc golfers there go down by at least 75%. On some days when the course is packed I may not mind! It shouldn’t be just about those of us who can handle the tough courses since we are a very small minority. The current set up at CC turns away new players, some of them for life possibly. If I were to play CC in its current setup the first time I ever played I may not have continued. If you want this sport to grow you have to get kids involved. There aren’t many juniors I know that would be willing to play some of the long courses.

I really don’t have a problem with long challenging courses, but only if there is the option of a shorter set up as well. I know there are more costs to do multiple tee pads, but I think that is a small sacrifice to pay to make a course that 100% of people enjoy rather then the current 5%. As stiff said, quit trying to force people to play what the pros enjoy. It’s not working and it never will. I’d say about the only goal being accomplished right now is making sure that the course won’t be crowded when you go to play.

I am a bit surprised at one of the main voices against a shorter set of pads at CC. I would think someone who has a vested financial interest in the sport would want to do everything possible to get as many new players. I know Dave doesn’t read this board and I’m not trying to call him out on it. It is something we have discussed many times and I don’t think he would have a problem with his opinion being posted. The biggest reason I have heard for not doing the shorter pads is because it would mess with the flow of play. I’ll admit I’ve only been to CC a few times, but I don’t care if you put 10 alternate tee pads there it won’t mess with the flow…the course was empty every time I went.

I wouldn’t have a problem with board minutes being posted on-line and how people voted. It would actually be a good idea to let everyone know how you are being represented. For the most part there is a unanimous decision on most matters. On those that there is some debate maybe we should post on the board explaining what is up for debate and get some feedback before a final decision is made.

At the time of the redesign at CC I strongly suggested that 1 on the pins be set short for the casual players and was dissapointed when they were all put in basically long. Now I believe we went the right way with the 1 pad and multiple pins, however CC is the 1 course where a shorter set of pads would benefit 100% of all the players, the "serious" and the casuals. The flow of play being effected with short pads does not fly. (no pun intented). Most of the time the serious golfer is playing an organized (course would be closed) or a semi organized (weekly) and would all be playing the same pads. The casual players seem to play at a good pace and would play even faster from the short pads so they would not effect a serious group behind them. If you have a casual group behind you playing the shorts and you feel like your being pushed show your course ettiquette and let them play through. 1 or 2 shots and 5 minutes later they'll be gone. When word gets out that CC has got short pads the play there would grow 10 fold (and I think I'm being extremely conservative). How could this not benifit the club, Gateway, or anyone else in the disc golf community? More members, more customers. Not to mention the increase in traffic would be so much that maybe they would have to think a little harder when it comes to cutting the grass or lack there of. So play the longs or play the shorts. The choice is yours. What a great country. Manager, can we get this whole thread moved to the CC course part of our site?